Selection pressure for homophobic politicians

[grundnorm.livejournal.com]

Despite having popular support, both houses of the Australian Parliament failed to pass bills supporting marriage equality for homosexual Australians.

On the one hand, we have to wonder what it is about the political process which creates a selection pressure for homophobes.  After all, the only reason to oppose marriage equality is homophobia.

Political opportunism doesn't really seem to cut it: it is shown time and time again that both parties would improve their support with the electorate if they relented.  It really does appear to be the case that politicians are more likely to be homophobic than the general population.

The bit I don't get is where the systemic flaw enters the game.  Why would hateful bigots be more common among politicians than the general population?

Comments

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

There is a simple solution - to stop all discrimination based on marital status thus making all citizens truly equal before the law.

Those who want a religious procedure would go to the church they like, those who want a contract are free to sigh whatever the contract they want.

[grundnorm.livejournal.com]

So is family nothing more than a contractual undertaking?

[jaye-elle.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with this. Instead of having 'weddings' call it civil ceremonies or unions etc. People are still married but those who want to get married in a religious building can choose to. What gets me is the comments that say gay marriage will 'ruin traditional families'. That's true in the traditional sense as the traditional family is husband, wife + 2.5 children but how common is the traditional family and why do we need to have them? I grew up in a single parent household and I can guarantee I am no worse off then someone who grew up in a 'traditional family'. Why should we dictate who gets to define family. If people don't like it - suck it up. I don't like guns but I don't campaign against everyone who has one!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because we all know that Christianity took a sharp decline in cultural effectiveness when priests had to marry white and black people.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

After all, the only reason to oppose marriage equality is homophobia.

Incorrect.

[grundnorm.livejournal.com]

No. It's correct.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Or religious beliefs that, coincidentally, counsel you to act exactly like a homophobe would. I've yet to see a secular argument for anti-gay-marriage stances that's not grounded in "zomg teh gheyz"

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You're right, as some people in Louisiana show racism is still considered an acceptable reason in some quarters........

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Did I miss your counterargument somewhere?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Where one gets ones homophobic ideas is quite beside the point. It could be repressed homosexuality, it could be a literal reading of Corinthians.

Like I said, Paul had issues.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

what are the others?

[prock.livejournal.com]

What were the other reasons for opposing gay marriage?

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

"Incorrect."

Incorrect.

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

I think gay people should have to suffer right along with the rest of us.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

The bit I don't get is where the systemic flaw enters the game.  Why would hateful bigots be more common among politicians than the general population?

A self selection mechanism? Why is a larger percentage of great media moguls criminal in comparison to the general population? Why do people who do not have the natural disinclination to lock people up become prison officers?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

There's also not just the numbers, but how much people in each group would be pissed off.

Changing the way things have been for a long time could piss off people in group A more than not changing them would piss off people in group B.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Why would hateful bigots be more common among politicians than the general population?


They're not. Politicians get popular by saying what is popular. Even if the population isn't saying it out loud.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

Hubristic, self righteous knobs have the confidence and certitude to put themselves forward as potential leaders. They believe that they are right, they believe that it is appropriate to suppress the will of people who believe differently to them (or alter it through whatever means) and they believe that they are an eminently suitable person to ensure that their version of right prevails.

They get support from entrenched and powerful hubristic, self righteous knobs who seek to promote the same agenda.

Privileged classes tend to generate far greater numbers of hubristic, self righteous knobs, because a huge part of acceptance of other people who are different to us requires compassion and insight which is borne of life experiences to which privileged folk are seldom privy to a useful, world-view adjusting extent. There is a kind of Dunning-Kruger effect in play which is specific to insight: these knobs have so little insight that they lack the insight to realise that they lack insight. That is: they lack insight into their own fallibility, insight into the genuineness of homosexuality as an innate state like heterosexuality is, insight to realise that the people who are calling them homophobic are not all victims of brainwashing, but actually have a point which should (for someone with insight) inspire some introspection and reviewing of the facts in the matter.

There tend to gather concentrations of wealthy, oblivious, hubristic, self righteous knobs in fields where leadership and / or power are potentially available, and they form their own echo chamber which reinforces them in their belief that theirs is a majority view, which reinforces their idea that imposing their beliefs on the populace is appropriate, and that they might be able to be the Great Hero who does it.

Well, that's what I reckon.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because the hateful bigots in the general population want to elect people who represent their neo-medieval view of the world?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

You''re the historian. Are there any historical examples of gay marriage among Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Indian tribes, ancient Egyptians, secular societies, etc?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Politicians are influenced by calculation of political gain. They crunch the numbers and see which way the wind is blowing. If the polling numbers showed that the population considered these bills to be an urgent high priority issue, it is unlikely that they would have been defeated.
Politicians are also risk averse, and I think that many don't know how the politics of this issue would play out if they supported it. Many probably think that there are far safer places to spend their political capital.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Off topic, I know, but can we all agree that GWB was an idiot in that a business person should know that one does not sell or trade one's capital?!?

"Political capital" is oxymoronic. It's time to quietly bury the phrase.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

politicians are generally older then the mean of of the population

[grundnorm.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Give me a call when gays have something real to complain about.

So you can't get married -- big deal.

There are so many other demographics who have things so much worse & its backwards & counter progressive for gays to be bumped to the top of the needs help list & I'm tired of hearing about it.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

So why not allow it and be done with it?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

OK, the religious can have their religious arguments and I can disagree with them, but they're there.

How the fuck does the atheist Prime Minister vote against this one on a conscience vote? How do you get to no on gay marriage from being an atheist without also being a bigot? Or a political opportunist, which she definitely is.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

the religious can have their religious arguments and I can disagree with them, but they're there.

Is this an okay time to point out that religions create a framework used to justify nefarious actions that otherwise wouldn't be justifiable outside religion?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

347 replies wow, the ladies doth protest too much, me thinks.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, what's up with *that*?

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Final word on this thread, ban me or laugh at me or whatever if you want I don't care anymore:

I just want to say how utterly disgusted I am with everyone telling gays their rights are irrelevant, and guilting us and telling us what we care about and what we think. This is exactly what the government does you know, decide on how important or unimportant our rights are like, it's always the majority deciding weather or not the minority deserve rights, deciding weather or not to treat us like human beings. If you ask me it is goddamn shameful. It is not O.K! You know what? If gay marriage is such a non issue to you then just leave it alone! You can't tell us what to do, you don't know us, and you know what? If you're not gay, or lesbian, or trans, or queer or any of that, here's some humble advice:

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Oh you're sooo banned for using hip-hop to make an argument!!!!11!1

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

what it is about the political process which creates a selection pressure for homophobes.

To some extent the social pressures are hold overs from our puritanical nations histories.
The homosexual is a threat to puritanism traditionally, and that is a healthy thing.
Politicians are representing squeaky wheels; the feces floats to the top.

the only reason to oppose marriage equality is homophobia.

Agreed.